Financial Data Systems – CFPB Complaint ID 2926491

Date Received: 2018-06-05T00:00:00

Product: Medical debt

Issue: Written notification about debt

Consumer Consent Provided to Share Complaint: Consent provided

Consumer Complaint: After reviewing my credit report via XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX, I determined a negative entry from Financial Data Systems for {$530.00}. I contacted the company on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX and spoke with XXXX initially who transferred me to XXXX a Ext.XXXX. XXXX informed me that XXXX at Ext. XXXX was out of the office, but she would have her to refill my claim. XXXX reasoning for allowing the claim to reprocess was due to the fact that they had wrong information regarding my insurance benefits. She confirmed the correct ID number as I provided it to her and she updated the file to reprocess. We did not verify the insurance provider at this time however. She explained that the claim was originally processed on XX/XX/XXXX. When she verified my name, I explained to her my legal name was not that of which was on the card ; XXXX instead of XXXX. She said that could have been the reasoning that the claim was denied. She advised me not to make any changes via HR to update my legal name until the claim had been reprocessed. I was advised to contact them back in 30 days for the results. XXXX provided me with two reference numbers : XXXX ( FDS internal # ) and XXXX ( XXXX XXXX Acct # ).

On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted the company back. Spoke with XXXX whom recalled speaking to me on the prior call and then transferred me back to XXXX. On this call, XXXX provided a very negative tone and told me that the debt was mines to pay. It was returned unpaid by the insurance company. I advised her I would contact XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, my insurance provider. She then advised that XXXX was not the provider they showed on record. My Subscriber ID with XXXX for the record is : XXXX. XXXX stated she would have XXXX file the claim to the correct insurance company with the correct subscriber ID already obtained in our first call.

On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX advised me they never originally received a claim for that particular service on the service date in question. There were however four ( 4 ) other claims processed and paid.

On XX/XX/XXXX, I was informed by XXXX that the claim did not pay. They did not receive any claim for this provider until XX/XX/XXXX. The reasoning the claim was denied was due to improper filing period. The XXXX representative XXXX offered to conduct a joint call with FDS to see if they would provide Proof of Timely Filing. While speaking with XXXX, she was determined that they could not do so, nor would they do so. She advised that the claim was filed and filed correctly on XX/XX/XXXX and the debt was mines to pay. Meanwhile, disregarding the two previous occasions in which we spoke and clarified and/or updated the correct insurance information. The XXXX representative made several requests to obtain the documentation so that the claim could possibly be disputed. He even requested that the charges be written off since the provider was an in-network provider. XXXX was very hostile and I advised her that I wanted to make sure that the call was being recorded for quality assurance purposes. She verified that it was. I advised her that during the duration of our call, she never advised me that the call was an attempt to collect a debt. XXXX, reduced her tone and turned the subject around as to if I was the one being disrespectful during the call. She made sure she apologized to me stating she is sorry if I didnt think she was being professional, but she felt like I was not being respectful to her in realizing this was my debt. The XXXX representative and myself stayed on this call for over 45 minutes. We then contacted the providers office directly. The provider is XXXX XXXX. We ( XXXX and myself ) then spoke to XXXX at XXXX XXXX at XXXX option # XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, whom stated she could not reprocess the claim, nor provide proof of timely filing. She advised after my request that she would discuss it with XXXX in the district office. The request was denied by XXXX when I spoke to her the following week on XX/XX/XXXX.

My complaints are as follows : 1. The provider could not have filed a claim on my behalf on XX/XX/XXXX since the collection agency had inaccurate information. This was verified by XXXX on our original call and second call. It is interesting to point out that all additional claims were paid for that date of service except that one. The collector states they received my information from the facility in which I was treated. My question is how did the other providers receive my information for the same treatment, and their charges were paid?

2. The collection agency denied provided proof of timely filing based on their comments that it was over 180 days of the date of filing. My question would be, when the claim was filed again on XX/XX/XXXX, did that not begin a new series of 180 days?

3. With my insurance company making the request, with an almost guarantee that the claim would be paid by going through the dispute process, why wouldnt either the provider or collection agency allow this claim the opportunity to be paid?

Company: Financial Data Systems

State/Zip: NC 282XX

Company Response to Complaint: Closed with explanation

Was Company Response Timely: Yes

Did Consumer Dispute Company Response: N/A

Complaint ID: 2926491

The above data is from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Keep in mind that every company will get a complaint from time-to-time, even the great ones. But there are a few key data points that will give you an idea about how well the company values their customers and handles consumer issues.

Look at the item Company Response to Complaint: and Did Consumer Dispute Company Response: to get a better idea of how this was resolved. And the field Consumer Complaint: can give you some context of the issue.

In particular what you are looking for was that the company response was timely and that the consumer did not dispute it. The posting of complaints has proven to be a valuable resource for both companies and consumers.